--On 11. august 2007 17:35 +0100 Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> Answers to this question during the BOF were not conclusive, so I would
> like to poll mailing list members on whether revision of RFC 2965 (HTTP
> State Management Mechanism) should be in scope for the proposed WG.
>
> Question: Should RFC 2965 revision be in scope for the WG?
>
> Please chose one of the following answers:
>
> 1). No
> 2). Yes
> 3). Maybe (this includes "yes, but when the WG completes the currently
> proposed milestones" and "yes, but this should be done in another WG")
> 4). I have another opinion, which is ....
>
My response:
Yes - updating of 2965 to document how the mechanism works, and possibly
describing issues due to non-conformant uses and inherent limitations in
the mechanism, SHOULD be in scope for the WG.
No - creating a new cookie mechanism to supplant the one specified in 2965
SHOULD NOT be in scope for the WG.
That doesn't fit any of alternatives 1-3, so I'm a 4....